2019 Utah Jazz Off Season Thread

[stitches]

So you also disagree with the premise.

I don't see us going into the luxury tax very deep. So I don't think the 4+ year plan is going to field a better team than he rookie deal Mitchell team can.

If you were to agree with the premise, I take it people don't see a better way to upgrade than Conley?

I agree with the premise - we have 2 years to make a big time move. The question is why make a move that only limits us to those 2 years, rather than one that extends past those 2 years? if you go for Conley - this is it... it's Conley for 2 years and then he either will be too old to contribute significantly or will leave. If you go for Conley you think those next 2 years are our best chance to contend.

The other option is - get long-term high end player. The question is whether that long term player over longer period(lets say 4 years) gives us better chance than Conley over the next 2 years?

[Luigi]

So you also disagree with the premise.

I don't see us going into the luxury tax very deep. So I don't think the 4+ year plan is going to field a better team than he rookie deal Mitchell team can.

If you were to agree with the premise, I take it people don't see a better way to upgrade than Conley?

I agree with the premise - we have 2 years to make a big time move. The question is why make a move that only limits us to those 2 years, rather than one that extends past those 2 years? if you go for Conley - this is it... it's Conley for 2 years and then he either will be too old to contribute significantly or will leave. If you go for Conley you think those next 2 years are our best chance to contend.

The other option is - get long-term high end player. The question is whether that long term player over longer period(lets say 4 years) gives us better chance than Conley over the next 2 years?

I think we are probably a worse team (starting year 3) if we get the long term player, since I don't think we'll attract minimum contract role players like other contenders do. But maybe that's beside the point.

Do you see a better move than Conley that's realistic? Conley was more than realistic, it was real (by all reports) and we let it drop (by reports). What's the better alternative?

[KqWIN]

I see both sides of this argument. I agree that our best window to win a championship is in the next two seasons. However, once the pay increases come we will not have another chance to improve the team.

Ideally you can get someone in that can help you now and later...but that’s unlikely.

[Inigo Montoya]

So you also disagree with the premise.

I don't see us going into the luxury tax very deep. So I don't think the 4+ year plan is going to field a better team than he rookie deal Mitchell team can.

If you were to agree with the premise, I take it people don't see a better way to upgrade than Conley?

I don't see the point in hypothetically agreeing with this premise (other that the fun debate itself, of course), because I really hate this premise, and would rather do a bunch of other things instead of this outcome. If we were to agree that we can't do better than Conley over a 4+ year period (I'm agreeing with your premise here anyway), I'd much rather blow the whole thing up and build around Mitchell's timeline instead of locking this team to another half-decade of above-mediocrity. Especially since Gobert can sign a supermax which will cripple this franchise even further. If the best we can do over the next 4 years is 2 years of overpriced Conley, just trade this entire roster sans DM for parts and draft picks and start again. Being stuck on the first-second round treadmill over the next decade has no appeal to me whatsoever. I fully recognize this will never happen, though.

[Luigi]

So you also disagree with the premise.

I don't see us going into the luxury tax very deep. So I don't think the 4+ year plan is going to field a better team than he rookie deal Mitchell team can.

If you were to agree with the premise, I take it people don't see a better way to upgrade than Conley?

I don't see the point in hypothetically agreeing with this premise (other that the fun debate itself, of course), because I really hate this premise, and would rather do a bunch of other things instead of this outcome. If we were to agree that we can't do better than Conley over a 4+ year period (I'm agreeing with your premise here anyway), I'd much rather blow the whole thing up and build around Mitchell's timeline instead of locking this team to another half-decade of above-mediocrity. Especially since Gobert can sign a supermax which will cripple this franchise even further. If the best we can do over the next 4 years is 2 years of overpriced Conley, just trade this entire roster sans DM for parts and draft picks and start again. Being stuck on the first-second round treadmill over the next decade has no appeal to me whatsoever. I fully recognize this will never happen, though.

Well, maybe you are back to tank commander Inigo!

I'm really surprised people don't see the incredible utility of Mitchell on a $3,635,760, $5,195,501 contract. We aren't getting that kind of asset again anytime soon, and we aren't a luxury tax team. I see no alternative but to go for it while we have it. This is the window. Conley was the best realistic (and real) option to do that in my book. And I'm not hearing any alternatives so far...

Not sure how realistic it is, but maybe D'angelo Russell?

[stitches]

I think we are probably a worse team if we get the long term player, since I don't think we'll attract minimum contract role players like other contenders do. But maybe that's beside the point.

Do you see a better move than Conley that's realistic? Conley was more than realistic, it was real (by all reports) and we let it drop (by reports). What's the better alternative?

I think there is one more thing that you are missing from your consideration. If Conley performs to a similar level to what he was last season... he WILL OPT OUT next year. Almost certainly he will. He will want to get one last contract, even if he loses some money on the last year of his current contract. For example, if he thinks some team will give him 3/90 after next year, I absolutely think he will opt out. And then you are at the mercy of him wanting to stay with you rather than bolt elsewhere for his money(if someone wants to outbid you).

So you might not even get 2 years rental for your 2 1st round picks.

I personally think better alternative is:
1. Getting high end FA at any position(besides center). Russell/Harris/Kemba/whoever...
2. Trading for long-term solution at any position - like lets say Spencer Dinwiddie...

[Luigi]

Couldn't the Jazz do your plan at that point and give Conley the 3/90 to stay?

Again, I don't love it. But I'm not seeing a better move.

[KqWIN]

You can always quit and tank at anytime. It's not difficult to do, you just need to pass off from ownership. You will very rarely get two star players at the cost of one like we do now. It's coming at a good time too. The Warriors are about to lose KD, and the new superteams will still be working out the kinks.

Something Luigi brought up that needs to be considered is that ownership is unlikely to want to pay luxury tax. It'd be nice to get someone like Russell or Harris in before the pay raises and then pay everyone else, but is ownership really going to fork out the cash?

We won't have this opportunity for decades. I'm serious. If we end up doing nothing with Mitchell+Gobert on their current deals it will be a gigantic wasted opportunity.

[Luigi]

I personally think better alternative is:
1. Getting high end FA at any position(besides center). Russell/Harris/Kemba/whoever...
2. Trading for long-term solution at any position - like lets say Spencer Dinwiddie...

I held back on Conley when the trade was live, because I thought we could maybe get a B-list free agent like Walker or Harris.

But I think those are totally unrealistic now. (Very sad. NBA players either don't wanna win, or don't realize that they would win in Utah.)

[stitches]

Couldn't the Jazz do your plan at that point and give Conley the 3/90 to stay?

Again, I don't love it. But I'm not seeing a better move.

They could... but there is ZERO guarantee that Conley will want to stay or that another team won't give him 3/100 .... or 3/110... or any other offer he might prefer to ours.

It will also mean you will be giving Conley+Gobert + Mitchell 100-110 a year by the last year of Conley's contract... how good of a roster can you really construct with 20M left for 12 more players?

[Luigi]

Couldn't the Jazz do your plan at that point and give Conley the 3/90 to stay?

Again, I don't love it. But I'm not seeing a better move.

They could... but there is ZERO guarantee that Conley will want to stay or that another team won't give him 3/100 .... or 3/110... or any other offer he might prefer to ours.

It will also mean you will be giving Conley+Gobert + Mitchell 100-110 a year by the last year of Conley's contract... how good of a roster can you really construct with 20M left for 12 more players?

Eh, it's not about guarantees. It's about convincing a player, a la Paul George, and probably Jimmy Butler and Kawhi Leonard, to stay.

And the 20M left is the problem I brought up for your plan, hahaha. I think Conley will opt in, after taking a step back. But I still don't see a better option to compete.

[zero24gravity]

You can always quit and tank at anytime. It's not difficult to do, you just need to pass off from ownership. You will very rarely get two star players at the cost of one like we do now. It's coming at a good time too. The Warriors are about to lose KD, and the new superteams will still be working out the kinks.

Something Luigi brought up that needs to be considered is that ownership is unlikely to want to pay luxury tax. It'd be nice to get someone like Russell or Harris in before the pay raises and then pay everyone else, but is ownership really going to fork out the cash?

We won't have this opportunity for decades. I'm serious. If we end up doing nothing with Mitchell+Gobert on their current deals it will be a gigantic wasted opportunity.

I think that ownership would pay into the luxury for a couple seasons if the Jazz are a REAL title contender. I'm not talking about "we think we can make it to the WCF, and then you never know". I'm talking about "Finals or bust". If they feel they have that opportunity, they'll pay. They did it back in the AK/Deron/Booz/Memo years, and that team was probably never a realistic Title contender.

I agree that now seems an ideal time to really push the envelope & try to make it happen. GS looks to be on the down-slide, the Jazz have DM on a rookie contract, Gobert is at his prime. To me, the question isn't will the Jazz FO try to get things done, the question is, can they get it done against their small-market, you-live-in-Utah, odds.

[stitches]

You can always quit and tank at anytime. It's not difficult to do, you just need to pass off from ownership. You will very rarely get two star players at the cost of one like we do now. It's coming at a good time too. The Warriors are about to lose KD, and the new superteams will still be working out the kinks.

Something Luigi brought up that needs to be considered is that ownership is unlikely to want to pay luxury tax. It'd be nice to get someone like Russell or Harris in before the pay raises and then pay everyone else, but is ownership really going to fork out the cash?

We won't have this opportunity for decades. I'm serious. If we end up doing nothing with Mitchell+Gobert on their current deals it will be a gigantic wasted opportunity.

Russell might cheaper than Conley if he stays past his current contract because he's limited to the 25% max, while Conley can get up to 35% max... Potentially keeping Conley past his current contract does nothing to alleviate the luxury tax concerns.

[Luigi]

I doubt Conley is going to get paid more than Russell at that point, despite max numbers.

[stitches]

Couldn't the Jazz do your plan at that point and give Conley the 3/90 to stay?

Again, I don't love it. But I'm not seeing a better move.

They could... but there is ZERO guarantee that Conley will want to stay or that another team won't give him 3/100 .... or 3/110... or any other offer he might prefer to ours.

It will also mean you will be giving Conley+Gobert + Mitchell 100-110 a year by the last year of Conley's contract... how good of a roster can you really construct with 20M left for 12 more players?

Eh, it's not about guarantees. It's about convincing a player, a la Paul George, and probably Jimmy Butler and Kawhi Leonard, to stay.

And the 20M left is the problem I brought up for your plan, hahaha. I think Conley will opt in, after taking a step back. But I still don't see a better option to compete.

If he's good he won't opt in... if he's bad you don't want him to opt in, but he will... It's a lose-lose... Conley holds all the cards. That's the problem. He can play his cards perfect, we can't because the option is his. And the worst option is he just leaves and this will be 7th 1st round pick(3 lotter) we've spent on PGs in the last 5 years without having achieved a solution at the position.

[stitches]

I doubt Conley is going to get paid more than Russell at that point, despite max numbers.

It doesn't have to be... they will be similar and pose similar constraints. So the question will be do you want Conley at 35 or Russell at 26 + your 1st round picks what give you cheap labor.

To me the answer is clear.

[Luigi]

If he's good he won't opt in... if he's bad you don't want him to opt in, but he will... It's a lose-lose... Conley holds all the cards. That's the problem. He can play his cards perfect, we can't because the option is his. And the worst option is he just leaves and this will be 7th 1st round pick(3 lotter) we've spent on PGs in the last 5 years without having achieved a solution at the position.

I see a middle option. He's not as good as he was, and he opts in.

But suppose he does play well, and opts out. I think Mike Conley playing like his old self is better than anything we are getting this summer!

Come to think of it, all these years where we had cap flexiblility and didn't turn it into assets before free agency hit... that was a major mistake. If we are truly this unapealling to NBA free agents, we should never ever ever have cap flexibility for anything but trades to acquire draft picks and players... like Mike Conley for example.

[KqWIN]

I doubt Conley is going to get paid more than Russell at that point, despite max numbers.

It doesn't have to be... they will be similar and pose similar constraints. So the question will be do you want Conley at 35 or Russell at 26 + your 1st round picks what give you cheap labor.

To me the answer is clear.

It’s obvious which one is better. Which one is more likely to happen though?

[stitches]

If he's good he won't opt in... if he's bad you don't want him to opt in, but he will... It's a lose-lose... Conley holds all the cards. That's the problem. He can play his cards perfect, we can't because the option is his. And the worst option is he just leaves and this will be 7th 1st round pick(3 lotter) we've spent on PGs in the last 5 years without having achieved a solution at the position.

I see a middle option. He's not as good as he was, and he opts in.

But suppose he does play well, and opts out. I think Mike Conley playing like his old self is better than anything we are getting this summer!

Come to think of it, all these years where we had cap flexiblility and didn't turn it into assets before free agency hit... that was a major mistake. If we are truly this unapealling to NBA free agents, we should never ever ever have cap flexibility for anything but trades to acquire draft picks and players... like Mike Conley for example.

If he doesn't play as good as he did last year... or close... why do you need him? Why do you pay 2 1sts and 35M a year for him ? If he's not close to the player he was last year, he won't change our fortunes or our ceiling much if at all...

[stitches]

I doubt Conley is going to get paid more than Russell at that point, despite max numbers.

It doesn't have to be... they will be similar and pose similar constraints. So the question will be do you want Conley at 35 or Russell at 26 + your 1st round picks what give you cheap labor.

To me the answer is clear.

It’s obvious which one is better. Which one is more likely to happen though?

Likely

1. we trade something between 1st and 2 1sts for Conley and he opts out and leaves, we only get 1 playoff run for that price...
2.a we trade something between 1st and 2 1sts for Conley and he opts out and resigns with us for something like 3/90 - 3/100
2.b we trade something between 1st and 2 1sts for Conley and he opts in and is not worth the 2 1sts we gave up... we waste the window
3. we get Russell for 4 years +